Gun Control poll

[azeri98]

Why because you can't refute the facts?

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by azeri98

Why because you can't refute the facts?

I can. You need to propose something first. I'm more likely to be stabbed to death than shot with one of those guns you are discussing. I'm 4x more likely to be shot by those "A-Okay" handguns you describe.

We should play a game called Ban or don't Ban... Then you'll realize how nuanced the topic actually is and how emotion is completely overriding logic.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

The Browning Auto 5 was first patented in 1905. The M1 the first major gas operated rifle in the 1930s.

School shootings are newer phenomenon so its something else. I'd rather look into deterrence and education before we start banning something that the public has had access to for over a century.

I'm going to guess the change is that semi automatic weapons are in much wider use and there has been a general deterioration in the mental health and value system of our society (mental health and values being related).

Banning some weapons is what I would call (and typically detest) a band-aid solution. It's more of a left wing totalitarian solution. The problem is that fixing the value system and mental health of this society is probably going to be a multi-generational solution that will run into serious resistance from the left.

So maybe a reasonable compromise is extreme vetting.

I am OK with extreme vetting for immigrants from countries where a preponderance of the people have hostile feelings towards the US even though incremental risk is small. My feeling is why accept even 1 unnecessary death if we can lower the risk by covering ourselves better up front. They can come here, just make sure.

So why not look at the data on who is committing these mass shootings, consider them a higher risk class, and do extreme vetting before allowing them to purchase a gun that might kill one of our kids?

It's the same thing, but it seems the left and right are on opposite sides from each other and themselves depending on the issue.

Profiling may be unappealing in some ways, but statistics work.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

So maybe a reasonable compromise is extreme vetting.

NOBODY is against Background Checks.

That's the problem with this issue. I get wait listed 75% I make a purchase. I'm not sure why but probably because someone with a similar name and social security number is not a nice person. I wait my 1-3 days and pick up my purchase... its completely random when it occurs as well. My last two purchases were a wait list the third I wasn't and the fourth I was.

The problem isn't the age.

It isn't the type because frankly its too difficult to administer.

It isn't some fake term like "assault weapon." 99.9% of "assault weapons" don't assault anything other than paper. One of mine assaults deer but only holds 3 rounds... is that an assault weapon too?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by azeri98

Why because you can't refute the facts?

What facts?
The premise of your post was your opinion.

if you need 15 to 30 shots to protect yourself maybe you need to practice shooting more

You are entitled to have it, but that doesn't make it a fact.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Tom

You are entitled to have it, but that doesn't make it a fact.

Should probably look into the accuracy of trained servicemen and what the military thinks the average small arms hit % is.

I'll give you a hint... its well below 1%.

GAO estimate is that the US is currently expending 250,000 small arms rounds per insurgent kill.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

NOBODY is against Background Checks.

That's the problem with this issue. I get wait listed 75% I make a purchase. I'm not sure why but probably because someone with a similar name and social security number is not a nice person. I wait my 1-3 days and pick up my purchase... its completely random when it occurs as well. My last two purchases were a wait list the third I wasn't and the fourth I was.

The problem isn't the age.

It isn't the type because frankly its too difficult to administer.

It isn't some fake term like "assault weapon." 99.9% of "assault weapons" don't assault anything other than paper. One of mine assaults deer but only holds 3 rounds... is that an assault weapon too?

On the one hand you have people pointing to reasons that guns aren't the core problem and on another you have people thinking that guns are the entire problem.

In the mean time, kids are dying. That means there's a problem.

Gun advocates are in denial just like the left is every time some extremist US hater from the middle east bombs a western country. They misrepresent stats and want to invite more without vetting.

There has to be a compromise somewhere.

I'm talking about vetting that goes beyond a background check that makes you wait 3 stinking days. My Amazon purchases of vitamins take longer than that. We should identify the groups that are higher risk and do a COMPREHENSIVE risk analysis and background check.

We don't allow kids to drink until 21 because we are afraid they aren't responsible enough and may drive and kill someone but we allow them to buy and own weapons. That's ridiculous.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Should probably look into the accuracy of trained servicemen and what the military thinks the average small arms hit % is.

I'll give you a hint... its well below 1%.

GAO estimate is that the US is currently expending 250,000 small arms rounds per insurgent kill.

Wait...what? Am I reading this wrong?

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Wait...what? Am I reading this wrong?

No, you are not.

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I can. You need to propose something first. I'm more likely to be stabbed to death than shot with one of those guns you are discussing. I'm 4x more likely to be shot by those "A-Okay" handguns you describe.

We should play a game called Ban or don't Ban... Then you'll realize how nuanced the topic actually is and how emotion is completely overriding logic.

As a single individual, yes you are more likely to be killed by a knife, handgun or even being hit by a car, the point is 17 school kids would not have been killed by a hand gun or knife, sometimes you have to protect society as a whole and give up some individual rights to protect the many, I'm a born American but now live in Canada because I married someone from here and decided to move, I thought it would be better to raise kids here, I think I made the right decision, I see both sides of the argument, my parents live in Michigan and my dad has guns, I ask him why do you need this type of gun?. He can't give me a good answer, he just says its my right, it is, but why do you need it? Like I said before I realize the right to protect yourself, if I lived there I would but not with an "assault rifle" or whatever you want to call it. The U.S. is my birthplace and love it, I just don't like the direction is going from both sides

[PaceAdvantage]

'll give you a hint... its well below 1%.

GAO estimate is that the US is currently expending 250,000 small arms rounds per insurgent kill.

Makes zero sense, even if I'm reading it right.

The above is saying that for every insurgent kill by the US military, it is expending 250,000 bullets, essentially? That's insane.

Even at a 1/2 percent hit rate, that's over 1,200 bullets hitting a single body...

I must be reading this wrong. It's insane.

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Should probably look into the accuracy of trained servicemen and what the military thinks the average small arms hit % is.

I'll give you a hint... its well below 1%.

GAO estimate is that the US is currently expending 250,000 small arms rounds per insurgent kill.

You're talking about war and fighting with enemies who are trained, not shooting kids in a barrel, sorry a school, big difference

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Makes zero sense, even if I'm reading it right.

The above is saying that for every insurgent kill by the US military, it is expending 250,000 bullets, essentially? That's insane.

Even at a 1/2 percent hit rate, that's over 1,200 bullets hitting a single body...

I must be reading this wrong. It's insane.

You are not.

Hop on Youtube and watch some cam videos from places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. You are seeing thousands upon thousands of rounds being expended in those brief firefights before the A10 or Apache rolls in and puts an end to it.

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by Tom

What facts?
The premise of your post was your opinion.



You are entitled to have it, but that doesn't make it a fact.

What other civilized countries have the amount of mass shootings that the U.S. does, or even gun related deaths, no country comes even remotely close, Are we more mentally ill than every other country, whats the reason behind all these mass killings, mental health is a big part but so is access to guns that can kill a lot of people in a short period of time

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by azeri98

You're talking about war and fighting with enemies who are trained, not shooting kids in a barrel, sorry a school, big difference

Put armed guards in the school.